Gary R., Gary F., Jeffrey D., Cathy, list,
Peirce said that all three unscientific methods lead to accidental and
capricious beliefs - that is, that only the scientific method overcomes
caprice, by hypothesizing that there are real things, and by actually
testing claims about particular real things (including methods themselves).
But I agree that there's something on the more active side about the
methods of authority and tenacity as compared to the method of _/a
priori/_, so as to make one think of some sort of pushiness. The method
of _/a priori/_ involves allowing oneself to be carried by the current
of thought wherever it leads - even if one is a thought leader like
Hegel. (The scientific method also involves a certain passivity -
allowing, even actively arranging for, oneself to be carried,
determined, to the truth.)
Yet for most people the method of authority involves being subjected to
force, and such seems a situation of passivity, not agency. On a closer
look at the authoritarian regime, however, one sees that many people do
both - they enforce, and they are subjected to enforcement,
regimentation. (The scientific method also involves subjecting oneself
to an outer compulsion - that of truth.)
Well, here's still another way maybe to do it:
1. Method of tenacity - rest inertia, patience, durability, stamina,
growth thereof (opinion as resource for hoped-for eventual gain of
pleasure / avoidance of pain).
2. Method of authority - force, agency (opinion as force or weapon for
desired more-or-less direct gain of pleasure / avoidance of pain).
Both of those could be considered instrumentalizations of opinion,
similarly as Jeffrey D. was discussing, if I understood him correctly.
But then we come to:
3. Method of _/a priori/_ (something like taste) - energy, vibrancy,
passion, action as undergone (opinion as 'consumed' for pleasure /
non-pain). This is 'passive' in the sense of ancient Greek
_/páschonta/_, undergoing, except with a decidedly pleasurable or
non-painful sense - it is something being acted on, driven, experiencing
action on the receiving end. Latin _/patiens/_, like 'patient', does not
always mean something 'undergoing' in a strong sense ('passion' is
closer to the ancient Greek sense). Anyway, this method is more
immediate, less instrument-mediated, than the other methods as a hedonism.
I also wanted to try to address Jeffrey D.'s remarks in
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2014-05/msg00017.html but I've
realized that I'm not sufficiently used to working with Kantian ideas.
Jeffrey D. wrote:
1) Subjective and internal (tenacity)
2) Subjective and external (authority)
3) Objective and internal (a priori)
4) Objective and external (a priori)
I do keep wondering about it.
Best, Ben
On 5/3/2014 1:03 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I'm not sure "insistent" or "imperative" quite do it either. How about "arbitrary"?
Anyhow, as you noted, Gary, what we're looking for would only work "for a thumbnail sketch" anyhow.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
E202-O
718 482-5700
*** *** *** ***
"Gary Fuhrman" 05/03/14 9:56 AM >>>
I'm inclined to agree with Jeff D. that "random" doesn't really capture the
quality common to the first two methods - but I can't think of a single
positive word that does, and I don't think Jeff has proposed one either.
"Insistent" maybe? "Imperative"?
I think "random" will do in a thumbnail sketch of the four methods, as long
as we read it as the opposite of "reasonable" (but still open to
rationalizing).
gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 2-May-14 7:39 PM
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of
Science
Gary R., Gary F., Cathy, List
Having pointed to an alternate basis for classifying the other methods for
fixing belief, let me offer a comment on your suggestion. The methods of
tenacity and authority need not be random. In fact, great effort in
reasoning can be spent defending one's own beliefs against evidence to the
contrary, and similar efforts can be spent defending those held by the
authorities that be.
Instead of focusing on a lack of direction in those methods, I would
recommend focusing on the instrumental way in which the the reasoning is
being construed. The a priori method purports to hold higher ends, but
contrary to what it is often asserted in defense of this method, it too
treats the rules as instrumental in character. The advantage of the
alternate reconstruction I am recommending is that it recognizes that these
alternatives treat the requirements of valid reasoning as prudential and not
moral requirements. The distinction between methods based on principles of
prudence and the one method that treats the requirements of logic as ethical
obligations does help to articulate Peirce's point in moralizing at the end
of the essay--such as when he says that what is more wholesome than any
belief is integrity of belief. What is more, it helps to makes sense of the
suggestions in the text that, for these other methods, the requirements are
all held to be conditional.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
________________________________________
From: Gary Richmond [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:51 PM
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of
Science
Gary, Cathy, list,
So, slightly modifying Cathy's list in consideration of Gary F's comments we
get (and, personally, with an eye to introducing these methods to students):
Method of Tenacity: private, random
Method of Authority: public, random
Method of Consensus: public, reasoned
Method of Science: public, reasoned and tested
Best,
Gary R.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
